Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I would have to agree.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But I do, at this point, want to take a moment to express some frustration. I had hoped that we would get to a point where we could find a way forward as a committee. As much as I've been enjoying some of Mr. Perkins' remarks, I would like to hear from Canadians about the content of the budget bill.

For instance, I know that many people have been frustrated at airports. There's a proposal in this bill to fix up the air passenger bill of rights. Frankly, it's one that I don't think is adequate. I've been doing some good work with my colleague Taylor Bachrach, the NDP transport critic, who has a lot to say, and rightly, about the government's proposal on the air passenger bill of rights. I'm looking forward to Taylor suggesting some amendments to the bill. I would prefer that we get to hear from folks who are experiencing these challenges in airports. I'd prefer to hear from folks in the industry about how we can improve that. We're not able to do that if we don't find a way to resolve the filibuster.

I share Conservatives' frustration in the minister not agreeing to come for two hours. I think that would be helpful. I understand why my colleagues across the way are frustrated with the way this has gone down and the Conservative choice to filibuster. But I would really like for us to find a way past this.

We've all talked about the excise tax around this table. While we didn't get a freeze on the excise tax, the budget implementation act does lower the excise tax increase to be consistent with the inflation target rather than actual inflation, which in the current context is a good thing. I think it definitely will be a benefit to local breweries and vineyards that have been concerned about the outsized excise tax increase that they will otherwise face if this committee can't find its way to doing the work that has properly been assigned to it.

I think about some of the information-sharing provisions that are important to the implementation of the dental care plan. Conservatives colleagues have rightly pointed out that the attestation method of delivering a program does have a lot of pitfalls. I think it's important that we move past that. Some of the legislative proposals in this bill are meant to move the dental care plan out of an attestation and payment model into a permanent program model where Canadians are able to go to the dentist, get basic dental services, and have those directly paid instead of sending a cheque and having to pay it themselves.

I think we're working toward a better model. It's a model that I want to see and that I'd like to see applied universally to Canadians. I don't expect everyone around the table to agree with that, but I do think that if this is a democratic forum, we should be able to get to the point where we get to make decisions about that as people who are duly elected to represent our constituents, and to make those decisions around the table. We haven't been able to do that, because we haven't been able to get to a vote on anything.

I think of some of the anti-money laundering provisions in the bill. I think of the increase in the tool deduction for tradespeople, which, as an electrician, is something I can definitely appreciate that people would value. We need to get on to the study of the bill and have the bill pass in order for Canadians to get the benefit of these things. I also think of some of the provisions in here that will remove tax from veterans benefits. Again, while I can appreciate that my Conservatives colleagues might not be crazy about the whole package, that's something that I think is a good thing and we should be moving forward with.

The question isn't about how we get to the point where everybody around this table agrees with everything in the bill. I don't think we're going to get there. We don't have to get there. As Conservatives like to remind us when we talk about the electoral system and our Parliament, we live in a majority decision-making context. That's what the House of Commons is. You need a simple majority to decide virtually every question, but we have to be able to put the question in order to make those decisions.

At a certain point, having a minority of people on the committee hold up the possibility of making a decision at all, simply because they don't like the decision that's going to be made or because they want this thing or that thing, becomes a problem for the whole artifice of Parliament.

You know, I respect the right of members to filibuster. I certainly respect it more when there's an obvious point to the filibuster—when the body that's being filibustered has the power to grant what is wanted. This committee doesn't have the power to compel the minister to appear for two hours. It simply doesn't have that power. It never has had that power. Unless we substantially change some of the basic principles of the Westminster parliamentary system, we will not have that power. I think we shouldn't be in a position of having to contemplate that, because I think the minister should just come for two hours, for Pete's sake—like, we're there—but we can't do that around this table.

What we can do is invite Canadians from civil society to talk about their concerns about the bill. They can talk about their concerns in both the negative sense, in terms of wanting to see change, and the positive sense, in terms of the way in which the bill addresses some of those concerns. We can't do that if we're going to sit here day in and day out.

Originally, the motion we're amending and then subamending talked about a goal of 20 hours of study. Well, we've spent the 20 hours. We could have spent the 20 hours with real people, talking about their real concerns with regard to what's in the bill or not in the bill. Instead, we've spent the 20 hours listening to a handful of the same people talk about a small subset of issues.

I say this with all due respect to my colleagues. I'm frustrated. I'm not angry. I support the right of parliamentarians to engage in this kind of activity, but I would ask that there be a more obvious point to it and that when they want something and they filibuster on it, they do it for something that the committee can actually deliver rather than something that we can't compel. Then we could deal with it around this table. We could get it done. We could move on. But as long as the filibuster is going to be about something that is outside the power of this committee to compel, we're stuck. We're stuck. I find that frustrating. I would much rather have spent this time listening to others about the bill proper.

I think we're at the point where we are running out of time. Some of these things that I mentioned earlier need to be in place. Dental care is a priority for the NDP and it's a priority for me. I want to get done what we need to do in order to be able to institute that program on a better basis than the attestation basis. I am concerned about doing that. I will do what's within my power to get that job done, among some of the other things that are in this bill that I think are important, but we should do it with time to have a process.

Everyone around this table knows that the most valuable commodity on Parliament Hill is time. Money is important. Many things are important. But the real currency on Parliament Hill is time, and we're pissing it away right now. If we want to value the study of this bill, we do that with time. If we want to get this bill passed by the summer in order for some of these things that need to be in place to move ahead, such as a reduction in the amount that the excise tax will go up by, then we have only so much time between now and when the House rises.

We are making a choice right now—I would say our Conservative colleagues are making a choice for us—on how that time gets spent. I don't think they're making a good choice. I am happy to be part of conversations, and I have been part of conversations, to try to break the impasse. I will continue to show up in good faith to conversations to try to break the impasse, but at the end of the day, there's not a lot that I can do unless others are willing to play ball.

I certainly hope we can find a way to break the impasse, because I want to hear from Canadians on the bill, the good parts and the bad parts, and I want to ensure that the shenanigans at this table don't prevent some of the concrete benefits of certain things in this bill from proceeding. I think we're up against the clock in that respect. I really beseech my colleagues to find a way to move forward instead of leaving us stuck in this position for another 20 hours or whatever it's been. It's been about 20 hours, give or take, right? Let's not do another 20. That's the time we have to talk to Canadians about the bill.

Let's use it, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I have on the speakers list MP Chambers and MP Perkins.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always find the interventions from my NDP colleague to be fairly persuasive on a number of matters.

He and I share a similar frustration: I would much rather be listening to witness testimony.

I apologize to Mr. Baker. I believed that he was trying to move the amendment, but I now realize that it was just a notice, which I think is in order, and my apologies for the point of order.

Mr. Chair, I'll provide notice of a subamendment to Mr. Baker's proposed amendment, which is “May 26” being moved to “June 8”. When we get there, that subamendment will be made to Mr. Baker's amendment.

I will also give notice of another amendment that I would seek to move once we get out of this rabbit hole of subamendments and amendments, which is to have the chair draft a letter to the Prime Minister's Office that asks that the Deputy Prime Minister be freed up to appear for two hours.

Mr. Chair, we've entered something of a twilight zone. We are now at a point where the government would love to see the filibuster continue.

Let me explain. The answer that the minister has not confirmed for how long she might be available is a little too cute by half on behalf of the government. If the minister were available for two hours, I think she would say that she's available for two hours, but to suggest that the minister is unaware that she's being requested for two hours because she hasn't been formally invited I think is quite disingenuous.

As I mentioned in my intervention last meeting, which I think sent shockwaves through the buildings of downtown Ottawa—in particular the former Langevin Block and the Prime Minister's Office—there are multiple ways in which this impasse can be resolved, and one of the simplest and easiest ways is a confirmation from the finance minister that indeed she is available for the two hours.

I don't think there needs to be a motion from the committee to change the invite, but perhaps I'd just simply ask the chair, have we asked for how long the minister is available or have we just sent the invite? I think we could pretty quickly solve it instead of trying to hide behind, “oh, we haven't actually formally requested the two hours”. I think everybody knows the game. Now I think the Liberals would be happy to see us filibuster through next Tuesday because they don't even need to be held accountable for their own budget.

Also, May 26 is quite an aggressive timeline under which you'd like to conclude clause-by-clause. Last year, we were short of witness testimony. This year, we'll likely be short of witness testimony. Again, we talk about majority will. The minister has been invited to this committee for 480 minutes over the last year and is intending to appear for 60 minutes next week.

In a weird way, I think the government is actually quite happy to let this continue, because they'll try to get a news article saying that we're preventing the minister from coming and that she's ready to come. Yet, they could easily solve this whole thing by saying, yes, it's going be 60 minutes, it's great, we'll see you next Tuesday and Bob's your uncle. We all go home and we make it.

I'm wearing my flying pigs socks. I know that the parliamentary secretary is wearing his flying pig socks.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I had high hopes for today.

That's the tradition. Mr. Blaikie will leave when we suspend and will go and put on his socks and I think we'll have a resolution.

There are multiple paths to one outcome, and it seems relatively reasonable to at least confirm with the minister for how long she might be available, so I would like to ask the chair whether the minister has been asked how long she is available for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The committee asked that an invitation be sent out to the minister. The minister did respond and said that she was available. This was for the committee—including you, MP Chambers. The minister was available to come before committee on the 16th, next Tuesday.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's excellent.

I have a follow-up question. Can we ask for how long? That doesn't require a motion. It doesn't require an invitation. That is a follow-up question in order for us to be prepared. How can the chair and the clerk be prepared if we don't know for how long the minister is available?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We will suspend for a bit. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

I was talking to the clerk. He has great knowledge, our clerk.

Thank you, Alexandre—and Sacha—very much for all the help. You do a great job.

I guess we can ask. It's at the will of the committee. The committee can always ask.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Not to be too pedantic, but if we think about preparing for next Tuesday, we might have two hours of committee with the minister, if she's available, or an hour with the minister and potentially an hour with witnesses, so we actually have to know if we need to schedule witnesses or invite witnesses for Tuesday. I think it would be important to clarify with the minister for how long she is available.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Just on a quick point of order, would it be useful for us to clarify that we think that question should be submitted electronically and not by carrier pigeon to Japan? I just think if we clear up some of the details at the outset—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's up to the committee, MP Blaikie.

MP Chambers, go ahead.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to just briefly comment in response to Mr. Baker's intervention about delaying potential supports for Canadians, the GST rebate, which is being marketed as the “grocery rebate”—thanks to the NDP, as I'm sure I hear somewhere in the back of the room—and is not actually going out until July for the sole reason of the government's incapability of executing it properly.

They even split off a separate bill to pass what we're calling the “grocery rebate”—the HST rebate—but for those cheques, actually, that relief is not going out until early July. That's not because this committee is delayed. That's actually because the government's execution capabilities were such that even when we all agreed to pass it quickly we couldn't get it out.

There is no relief, not one penny of relief, that's going to be delayed because of what's happening here.

By the way, with Mr. Baker's amendment, this bill is going to be out of committee on May 26 anyway. There is no relief from this budget that's going to be delayed for or lost by Canadians because we've lost a few hours of committee testimony. They are programming it to be out by May 26 in any event.

I just have to take slight issue with that: It's in fact the government's own execution capabilities that have delayed relief getting to Canadians. In fact, all parties got together, supported and fast-tracked the bill that separated out the GST rebate. We supported it a couple of months ago, the Conservatives did, and as well in the fall when it came out. We did so on the understanding that it would more expeditiously get help to Canadians, but those cheques will not be going out until July.

In summary, Mr. Chair, I think it would be great if we get the confirmation. I believe that is under way. I think that will help us advance this impasse once we get an answer back from the minister's office. I think we're being a little cute when we say, yes, the minister can come, but we're not sure for how long. If we can confirm that, it would be great.

I will just point out that this is feeling a little like the twilight zone, because when the government provides answers like that, you have to ask yourself if maybe they want the filibuster to continue. They don't want to be accountable. We're actually pulling resources from other committees, which gets the government off the hook for talking about some difficult and uncomfortable situations in other committees.

On this side of table, at least, we think there is a path to a solution without actually being too intrusive. I'd love to see witness testimony. I was very frustrated last year with the lack of witness testimony and when the only opportunity is for them to go to the Senate, which is a fine institution, no doubt, but members around this table have some very intelligent questions to ask of witnesses when they show up. I would like to get to that point, but I really hope that the government is not now hoping that the filibuster continues. I hope they will answer the question about how long the minister is available forthwith, so that we may proceed.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. I apologize for interrupting earlier on the point of order of Mr. Baker, which I understand was an appropriate notice of motion. I didn't think it was appropriate to move it at that point or to motivate it.

I hope we can proceed in such a fashion and that we'll get an answer back from the clerk. I'm sure that when the clerk receives an answer, he will interrupt us right away and let us know.

I thank both clerks for their work, as well as the interpreters.

I don't think anybody has really given too many accolades to our interpreters, but thank you to them for being with us.

I see a thumbs-up. We appreciate all the work you do.

Mr. Chair, I'll yield the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I have MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Did I hear “oh no”? I thought I was gaining friends. I'm sensitive that way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am recalling, though, some discussion from Tuesday night about the question of whether this bill of the finance minister is or is not an omnibus bill. Maybe this is a question that we could pose as an important question for the minister, if the Minister of Finance comes for two hours.

There was some claim that it wasn't. I obviously believe that a finance bill is about the government raising money, expending money and borrowing money, and that things outside of that are actually bills related to other matters.

That's why we call them omnibus bills.

I know that all the members on the government side love this document, “A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class”, which is the 2015 platform they ran on. I'll read from page 30 of what it says. It mentions one of the best prime ministers Canada has ever had, that being Stephen Harper, saying, “Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” That was the perspective of the Liberal Party then, that this prevented Parliament from properly debating proposals. I know that most Canadians will be shocked to learn that the Liberal government said, “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”

That's probably why some of the government members objected to me calling this an omnibus bill, but as I pointed out, there are amendments to the Canada Elections Act in this bill. The Canada Elections Act is not a question of spending, borrowing or raising money, but apparently that is not considered an omnibus element under the promise of the Liberals in 2015 to end that practice.

I can understand that maybe that's what is making the minister feel uncomfortable in coming. Perhaps I'm being generous, because I actually think it's the content of the bill, not so much in the sense of the inability, or the ability, of her to actually defend in Parliament—in Parliament, where truthfulness is everything—why her document and why her economic statement said we would have a balanced budget only six months ago in Parliament. She said that to Parliament, tabled the document in Parliament, made it available to Canadians, and yet, at the end of the day, only six months later, she...or somebody within the government told her that's no longer our plan: We're going to go back to our plan that we've been following since we got into office. It's not the one we promised in 2015, where we would only run small budget deficits and would balance the budget in 2019—no, no.

But that's what was promised. The minister probably doesn't like being reminded of that. Either she or the collectivity of the cabinet, or perhaps the Prime Minister's Office, didn't free Freeland to live up to that promise—or "Bill no more”, the previous guy—when they now say, well, we're going to balance it again. They went back to their 2015 promise in 2022 and said, okay, well, on what we've been saying in the last six or seven years, where we weren't going to balance the budget, we've now been convinced that we're going to balance the budget. Now the budget that gets presented to Parliament proposes no balancing of the budget.

These are questions that need to be asked on behalf of Canadians. It's not as if there is a revenue problem, because there's 63% more revenue coming in to the Government of Canada today than there was when this government was elected in 2015. If you believe this plan...and remember that none of these budget plans have ever been met that the Liberals have put in. Much like the climate change plan, none of these budgets have ever been met. If you believe this plan, by the end of the five-year fiscal framework government revenue will have gone up 92%.

I've told a few stories in the last few hours before this committee to bring people back, but regardless of age, most people in this committee and most people watching are familiar with a group called The Beatles. I presume that most people are. I'm a fan. I've always been a fan. It's one of my favourite groups. They had, if you recall 1971, billboard top hits—34 top tens and 20 number ones.

In that mix was a song called Taxman. Every time I hear it, I think of the current Prime Minister.

I won't do justice to the way John Lennon sang it, although he did not write it, but it goes like this:

One, two, three, four
One, two
One, two, three, four
Let me tell you how it will be

This was about the Labour government of the 1960s in Britain. That's what this song was written about.

There's one for you, 19 for me

The “me” here is the government.

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five percent appear too small

That's the 5% you get to keep that you earned.

Be thankful I don't take it all

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat

That one has a special resonance right now. “I'll tax the heat” could have been a carbon tax.

If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Well, we know that the carbon tax impacts the cost of shoes, because it requires rubber, which requires oil and gas. Every stage of manufacturing a shoe has a carbon tax applied, which is increasing inflation.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

I think that's the platform of the Liberal Party.

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have a point of order from MP Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I wish to thank Mr. Perkins for all the information he is sharing, but I fear he misled the committee by insinuating that John Lennon sang that Beatles' song. I checked, and George Harrison was the one who sang the song. It was the first time he was asked to sing. We have to give the Fab Four their due, especially the great guitarist George Harrison, who was able to sing a ditty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

On that same point of order, go ahead, MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

On the same point of order, I think Give Peace a Chance might actually be a Beatles song with a more practical implication for the committee. Perhaps we should consider that song instead of others in this moment that we find ourselves in.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Once again, Mr. Chair, I want to make sure the committee is not being misled. Unless I'm mistaken, Give Peace a Chance is not a Beatles' song. It's by John Lennon, after he went solo. I should point out that during his bed‑in at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, he wanted to record the song, but the original recording was actually lost so the song had to be re-recorded somewhere else.

I think the committee should have the most accurate information possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

MP Perkins, I hope that helps.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I defer to the greatness of the Bloc member, who is clearly an even bigger fan than I am. I'm sure he then, with his knowledge, will know that Taxman, this famous song, was actually not written by Lennon or McCartney. It was written by Gary Harrison. Gary Harrison wrote the song.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more

It's sort of a threat.

'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is that what you guys say about this filibuster—don't ask us what we want it for?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Dzerowicz has her hand up.

MP Dzerowicz, is that to get on the speaking order or is it—